Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>]

On 16/09/2003 05:23, Trevor Peterson wrote:

> > ===== Original Message From George Athas <gathas AT hotkey.net.au> =====
> > There does appear to have been a Qal Passive at a very early
> > stage of Hebrew. The vestiges of it are seen mostly in the Qal Passive
> > participle. However, there are a handful of Qal Passive Perfects and 
> >    
> Imperfects,
>  
>
> > which are usually mistaken for Pual or Hophal forms. There is a short 
> >    
> discussion
>  
>
> > of these in Seow's grammar (2nd Ed), pp.323-24. I'm sure there must be a more
> > detailed discussion elsewhere, too.
> >    
>
> W&O'C has a pretty good discussion of it, and you should find enough 
> bibliography there to go further. ...
Thanks, George and Trevor, for refreshing my memory on this one.

But it still seems to me that any idea of a qal passive at 1 Sam 1:22 is 
bringing in an unnecessary complication. At least I would want to see 
evidence that there is a qal passive of ra'ah which would have the 
correct consonantal form. And my point was that there is no need to 
posit a passive form here as the active form is quite comprehensible, 
and not theologically objectionable, when the idiom is understood.

--
Peter Kirk
peter AT qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
http://www.qaya.org/